Reader's comments on this article Add a new comment on this article

from Baxter Friday, September 23, 2005 - 02:28 (Agree/Disagree?) Oh Bollocks! He wanted recompense and he got it. The only difference was, he had a stronger sense of personal honour than his tormentors. That said, most of the Nazis who were caught were so because they were either stupid or racked with guilt. The smart ones got away scot free. (reply to this comment)

From Fist Sunday, September 25, 2005, 18:03 (Agree/Disagree?) Racked by Guilt? It simply isnt sanitary!!!(reply to this comment)

From Friday, September 23, 2005, 10:11 (Agree/Disagree?) Like Joseph Mengale who did the experiments at Auchwitz, he escaped with help from the catholic church. (reply to this comment)

from Sir Rantalot Thursday, September 22, 2005 - 06:56 (Agree/Disagree?) Wow, a role-model, someone who spent their life chasing revenge, at least with him, the Nazis did win after all. What a loser. Give me positive holocaust suvivors anyday, Victor Frankl comes to mind. (reply to this comment)

From Friday, September 23, 2005, 10:13 (Agree/Disagree?) What is a "positive Holocaust survivor," and why do you think Wiesenthal was not one?(reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Saturday, September 24, 2005, 12:13 (Agree/Disagree?) I would think that a 'positive Holocaust survivor' would typically be the sort that did not allow those words to define them.(reply to this comment)

From Saturday, September 24, 2005, 13:06 (Agree/Disagree?) Ok OublieItAll, as somebody who has said in this forum that you did not "survive" any abuse in the Family, your answer is uninteresting except to show how people with no qualifications are so willing to volunteer an uniformed opinion. From what I understand, you are highly qualified, but not one whit in the sense needed to give a meaningful answer to that questions. Your qualifications are having become a derivatives trader dealing with multibillion contracts after leaving, at a time when the trails for leaving had been already blazed bu others (in blood sweat and tears) an abuse-free youth where you rose to the ranks of executive in one of the Family's corporations. You had it to peachy for anyone to care what you have to say about this. But thans for sharing! (reply to this comment)

From .......The Fuck!? Sunday, September 25, 2005, 15:53 (Agree/Disagree?) For someone who writes like a fucking 10 year old ,you my friend are a self-righteous dickhead who can't confront other peoples opinions. Who GIVES A FUCKING SHIT if other people left before Oublie or myself or anyone else left. 'Trailblazing' doesn't account for shit because everyone experiences leaving differently. Or do you have issues with other people being more successful than you? (reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Monday, September 26, 2005, 03:36 (Agree/Disagree?) Fair play here, I'm man enough to admit when I've benefitted from others' experiences. In this case, I saw what others had done when leaving TF, and decided that I didn't want to go down the same road.(reply to this comment)

From Monday, September 26, 2005, 07:54 (Agree/Disagree?) Did you ever think that maybe it can be harder if you've been abused? What about those who were seriously abused but had nothing when they left and were unable to get therapy before getting on an unhealthy coping cycle?(reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Monday, September 26, 2005, 08:18 (Agree/Disagree?) I'm not going to feel guilty for having had it easier than some others, if that's what you're asking. My experiences were different - some better, for which I count myself lucky; and some worse - the sum of which have helped to shape my character into what it is today, yet they do not define me as an individual. My sympathies go out to all who have suffered - however, I am still entitled to an opinion, and an attempt to improve my position.(reply to this comment)

From Monday, September 26, 2005, 08:23 (Agree/Disagree?) My comment is not about you feeling guilty. It's about the reality of others who may have had it worse and the obnoxious comments you make about them.(reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Monday, September 26, 2005, 08:42 (Agree/Disagree?) Alas, I have no control over how my comments are percieved by others, nor from what they may choose to take offence. I therefore do not allow a fear of what their response may be to dictate my opinions. That said, in this instance I offered a response to the question posed on the definition of a specific term - if you disagree with me, say so. There's no need to start an ad hominem attack over it. I also see you are still hiding your ID, at least when I offer my opinion I put my ID behind it.(reply to this comment)

From Monday, September 26, 2005, 12:29 (Agree/Disagree?) Ne Oublie is identification? Besides I agree with what was said above. You do come off awfully sanctimonious when you offer your very strong opinions on subjects you admittingly know nothing since you never experienced abuse. It is not ad honinem to point out the obvious.(reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Monday, September 26, 2005, 15:24 (Agree/Disagree?) 'Ne Oublie' is what is commonly refered to as a UserID, since it serves the purpose of identifying a user to a computer program or application - in this case myself to this website. I'm sorry that you dislike both my opinions and the language which I use to express them, however I make no apologies for either. My comments and opinions are not intended to be 'sanctimonious', 'obnoxious' or even 'strong', and it is regrettable that this is how they are interpreted. I was not aware that one was obliged to experience something in order to have an opinion on the topic, to the contrary, I would consider having an opinion to be the natural state for any intelligent individual. Taking your logic, I would have to conclude that no one on this site is eligible to comment on this thread, seeing as we are all far too young to have experienced the Holocaust. Reading this thread, you will see that I offered an opinion (and clearly prefaced it as such), to which a response was made about myself instead of the view I presented. That IS an ad hominem attack, since it addresses the person, and not the topic being discussed. If you disagree with what I said, say so, and even better, say why you disagree with me. That's what a discussion is all about.(reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Saturday, September 24, 2005, 13:31 (Agree/Disagree?) I never intended for my opinion to be treated as anything other than exactly that... MY OPINION. Somehow I doubt that my bio makes for interesting retelling, hence my omission. Speaking of omissions, however, I see that your ID has been omitted... any particular reason?(reply to this comment)

From Albatross Thursday, September 22, 2005, 08:28 (Agree/Disagree?) The Nazis who found themselves at the business end of an executioner rope while Wiesenthal watched, most definitely DID NOT WIN. In the final analysis it all comes down to the individual.That the remaining Nazis lived with his specter haunting them was indeed a victory for victims of the Holocaust the world over. I should add that seeking justice and being a positive survivor are not mutually exclusive. Daniel Roselle(reply to this comment)

From Baxter Sunday, September 25, 2005, 16:13 (Agree/Disagree?) There are grounds for arguning that Eichmann was only caught because he pretty much wanted to get caught. He was never anywhere as important in the heirarchy of the Final Solution. He was raised from the ranks of the enlisted Waffen SS. He never went beyond the rank of Lt. colonel, becaase he didn't have either the connections or the charisma. He couldn't kill in cold blood, he claims to have nearly fainted the first time he witnessed a gassing. He was crucial to the working of the machine (as an 'expert' on 'Jewish Issues'), but he could have quite easily been replaced. The catalyst (arguably) was the comparison between the purported notariety of 'Eichmann the Butcher' and the reality of Eichmann the impoverished fugitive living in a poor neighbourhood in Buenos Aires, with the other fugitive Nazis living in exile. He wanted his 15 minutes, even if he got whacked in the process. It was not hard to catch him: he gave interviews to ex-Nazi journalists, and he started dropping his name to othe expatriates in the area he lived. My point is, there is an enormous difference between the reality of the Holocaust, and emotional fantasy of the Holocaust. Unwittingly, Wiesenthal became a medium of this, and while his work was extremely important, his legacy is partially lost in the popular distortion of the reality of events and the dehumanising and dimensional downsizing of the perpetrators. 60 years on, and the general public are still pretty far from really comfronting the implications of the Holocaust. It is certainly not Simon Wiesenthal's fault that this happened, but nobody really ever wanted to hear what he had to say. The far greater proportion of Nazis who were captured post- Nuremburg were captured and tried in Germany, and most received ridiculously lenient sentences. (reply to this comment)

From Monday, September 26, 2005, 13:13 (Agree/Disagree?) http://www.savethemales.ca/001007.html(reply to this comment)

From Just an opinion Thursday, September 29, 2005, 18:54 (Agree/Disagree?) They guy who runs that site is a real nut. He's a borderline anti-Semite, a homophobe and conspiracy freak. He's OBSSESED with feminism and insecure as hell. He strongly recommends that American men go overseas to find sufficiently submissive women to "marry" (Trans: Own). I read and research all over the internet and his crap keeps popping up on wacko Christian-identity type web sites. (Note: He claims not to hate ALL Jews, just the rich ones.)(reply to this comment)

From Nancy Thursday, September 22, 2005, 07:54 (Agree/Disagree?) Ponder the difference between justice and revenge, between concern for human suffering and indifference and between doing what one can and doing nothing. Therein lies our humanity.(reply to this comment)

From Sir Rantalot Thursday, September 22, 2005, 08:59 (Agree/Disagree?) Justice is nothing more than institutionalized, legalized revenge. People will eventually die. Did killing those Nazis give him back the years he spent in a concentration camp? The loved ones he lost? No, each Nazi "brought to Justice" was just another hit on the crack pipe, an empty, fleeting high, all that was left to do was go after another war "criminal"(what a ridiculous term), while drinking in the high of ignorant people telling you what a hero you are, delusions of comic book heroes filling his clouded head. (reply to this comment)

From conjoined twins Thursday, September 22, 2005, 12:34 (Agree/Disagree?) "Justice is nothing more than institutionalized, legalized revenge." just done an essay on this: What justifies judicial punishment? If we take it that punishment has meaning, acts like a message then I identified 9 different 'messages'. stay with me... 1. from Society to the offender : conveying our disaproval 1. from Society to the victim : showing we side with the victim 3. from Society to itself : upholding the integrity of our laws and the values they represent 4. from victim to the offender : institutionalized, legalized revenge 5. from victim to the society : "harm to me is not without consequences" 6. from victim to herself : healing: "i am no longer a victim" 7. from offender to Society : "i have paid my debt to Society" 8. from offender to victim : "i have paid my debt to victim" 9. from offender to herself : self-reform thru penance the proportional punishment for an offense can have all these meanings, and although some of these are more important than others it is important to justify punishment with the full picture in mind. (reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Saturday, September 24, 2005, 12:11 (Agree/Disagree?) Judicial punishment is simply the way to enforce the rules which govern our society. It's primary function is that of an imposed cause & effect, and as such the details of the punishment are of less importance than the fact that there is one. Where they do have some significance is primarily as a means of 'grading' offences, or showing that society's tolerance for certain actions is less than others.(reply to this comment)

From Sir Rantalot Friday, September 23, 2005, 05:34 (Agree/Disagree?) Nice Scheme there. I would be totally for that reasoning in a small group of friends. I just battle with the concept of society on a larger scale. Inevitably, there will differences of opinion inside this society as to what constitutes crime and what punishment for committing crime should be. Also, in delegating revenge and punishment to others, we lose what we would have gained doing it ourselves. We become more and more dependent on a bureaucratic machine to do what we should be doing. I see society a limiting factor, sure, a big social organization sure looks great on paper, but who really feels part something anymore? More than anything else, it is invasive, if you feel the need to become part of a structured, protected environment, well that's your choice, but what about those who look on such an institution as alien and who want no part in it, and it's illusions? Does it allow for differences in opinion, does it allow for dissent? Usually no, and that's where it can be compared to religion, that's also where it's objectivity is lost, as the preservation of it's sovereignty becomes it's primary concern, and the pacifying/protecting of its members becomes only a secondary objective. In this tangled muddle called civilisation, it's no us versus them question, it never was. The revolutionary, the freedom fighter betrayed by the very people he was trying to liberate is a common occurence. Reich had noted this, and in fact set about to study the masochism of the individual will fight to remain enslaved. There just is a bit of rotten, busy-body herd instinct in all of us, from the nosy old neighbour to the well-meaning cop to the illustrious defender of the weak. (reply to this comment)

From baglady Friday, September 23, 2005, 12:21 (Agree/Disagree?) "I would be totally for that reasoning in a small group of friends. I just battle with the concept of society on a larger scale." Are you familiar with chaos theory? The patterns that occur at the level of small group organization (fractals) are replicated on the larger scale of conglomerates. "Differences of opinion as to what constitutes crime & punishment" appear to be disparate, but on closer examination comprise the distribution of only a few basic patterns. I believe your observation is correct that where bureaucratic institutions are concerned, "the preservation of it's (sic) sovereignty becomes it's (sic) primary concern, and the pacifying/protecting of its members becomes only a secondary objective." However, I think it is something of a counterdependent illusion to think that you can divorce yourself from the "structured, protected environment" of the bureaucratic machine that runs human society--even if you live in total self-sufficient isolation in the wilderness. Regardless of where you position yourself in relation to others, you cannot escape the long, inter-connected strings of causality that tie you to the web of existence. For the person who lives in self-sufficient isolation, wouldn't preservation of sovereignty be the primary concern? With self-sufficient isolation, self-protection and security can be no more than a secondary objective. Any form of social existence will replicate what you abhor. 'We have met the enemy, and the enemy is us,' said Pogo the Possum.(reply to this comment)

From Sir Rantalot Friday, September 23, 2005, 15:26 (Agree/Disagree?) "'We have met the enemy, and the enemy is us,' said Pogo the Possum." That's what my last paragraph was about.(reply to this comment)

From Baxter Friday, September 23, 2005, 02:28 (Agree/Disagree?) Bang on, Dave.(reply to this comment)

From Thursday, September 22, 2005, 09:08 (Agree/Disagree?) Without "institutionalized, legalized revenge," there is no civilization, no chance of peace, no hope for building a life with the durable features needed so that every day is not russian roulette (will I survive? if so, will I eat today? will I remain clothed, have a shelter when I need it?). But I guess for one who celebrated the New Orleans chaos, you probably don't mind (of course you'd be not-minding from a position with the benefits of a civilization, not a position of the chaos you seem to celebrate). Since you are quite the proponent of "pharma," why in this case are you talking negatively about a "hit on the crack pipe, an empty, fleeting high"?(reply to this comment)

From Sir Rantalot Thursday, September 22, 2005, 09:37 (Agree/Disagree?) "Since you are quite the proponent of "pharma," why in this case are you talking negatively about a "hit on the crack pipe, an empty, fleeting high"?" Can anyone who went on a crack binge say they walked away satisfied? I don't recall ever having sang praises to crack, acid yes, dexedrine, maybe, but never crack. It's not all the same, y'know... What if you look at civilisation as man protecting himself from his biggest fears instead of facing them? What if you look at civilisation sa man's gradual taming and path to weakness(sound familiar)? Of course it's a much more complex question, and it's not all bad, just some thoughts to counter the ingrained chaos=bad, civilization=good. Mmm, Blake's "Marriage of heaven and hell" and De Sade's plays could be a starting point. [url]http://www.blakearchive.org.uk/cgi-bin/nph-dweb/blake/Illuminated-Book/MHH/mhh.c/@Generic__BookView;cv=java[/url] (reply to this comment)

From Thursday, September 22, 2005, 18:31 (Agree/Disagree?) Depending on what my "biggest fears" are, it may be suicidal to confront them. And some of the people I have met or heard about needed taming. Not everybody gets to decided that they will be exempt from taming because societal restraints put a damper on living out their particular inclinations. Cult molestors will disagree that they need taming, because they do it in love. But as their victim, I disagree because I suffered the losses they inflicted on me. I appreciate that you acknowledge the complexity of the question. I agree that philosophical questioning of assumptions is good for ones intelligence. I am less sure that the playing out in the world of some mental experiments is good for one's physical health. I'll chalk my acceptance of civilizations "fearful" or "taming" aspects up to all the struggling I have done for years to stay above water, which seems to have gradually given me more of a wish to survive with as much integrity as possible. I guess I have sunk so much into staying alive that if I were to abandon the task, it would have been smarter to cut my losses much earlier. As far as the crack, your reservations are duly noted. Not having tried it, I did not understand what aspect makes it unsatisfying. So acid, dexedrine (any others?) have aspects you would sing the praises of. How are their virtues equated to "not letting the Nazis win"? ;-) So (reply to this comment)

From baglady Thursday, September 22, 2005, 11:17 (Agree/Disagree?) This is a perfect example of why I love reading posts at this website: People start commenting on the ethical implications of post-Nuremberg Nazi hunting, and then you reference a work of 18th century literature & art as an opposing source of philosophical insight. So I go off to read up on Blake's "Heaven & Hell" to figure out what the hey you're talking about, and next thing I'm thinking is, "Well now, that's an interesting point of view." Are you familiar with the contemporary visionary John Perkins? He wrote Shapeshifting: Shamanic techniques for global and personal transformation. Also, Confessions of an Economic Hit Man.(reply to this comment)

from Baxter Wednesday, September 21, 2005 - 16:29 (Agree/Disagree?) One of a very small number of people who truly managed to salvage some dignity from the holocaust. (reply to this comment)

from moon beam Wednesday, September 21, 2005 - 11:14 (Agree/Disagree?) May he rest in peace and his work, conscience and example live on! (reply to this comment)

from Nancy Tuesday, September 20, 2005 - 21:53 (Agree/Disagree?) beautiful poetic Strangley similar to the motivation of many of us here. (reply to this comment)